On 13/01/12 02:47, Ben Finney wrote:
> Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com>
> writes:
>>> A non-profit license would be nice, but a serious question: Can anyone
>> come up with a globally applicable definition of non-profit?
>> I have another serious question: Why is a non-profit license nice? It's
> not obvious to me, and it doesn't fit with the ideals of free culture as
> I understand them.
>> Why should it matter whether culture, freely shared to all recipients
> under non-discriminatory terms and permitting further sharing the same
> way, is making a profit? That strikes me as something to be celebrated,
> rather than denied through a license clause.
Because the *particular* nature of profit making in this context (the
world in which we live) is a function of an economic philosophy of
continuous expansion, which treats (natural) resources as inifinite.
Some people have discovered that this is in fact not the case - the
world is finite and the natural resources are running out - and
therefore these people are building movements and trying to find ways to
reverse this destructive economy. Not making profit is seen as one way
of doing this.
m
--
http://commoning.wordpress.com
"...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."